Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00844-CR
Mathew Ray GOMEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 2, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. CCL-12-1963
Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 28, 2015
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
A jury found appellant Mathew Ray Gomez guilty of possession of marijuana – two ounces
or less. The trial court sentenced Gomez to one hundred and twenty days’ confinement and a
$1,000.00 fine. Gomez perfected this appeal.
Gomez’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
she raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The
brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
04-13-00844-CR
1969). Gomez was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to obtain a copy of
the appellate record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.). Appointed counsel provided Gomez with a form
which he could sign, date, and file with this court in order to obtain a copy of the record. See Kelly
v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Gomez filed neither a request for the
record nor a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Gomez’s counsel and affirm the
trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gomez wish to seek further review of this
case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is rendered
or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for
discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-2-